[CWG-Stewardship] Fwd: [Internal-cg] Status of IPR topic in the CWG

[Seun Ojedeji]

On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

>
>
> Lise,
>
> If this is the premise behind your thinking:
>
>
>
> *Likely that ICANN Legal input would be similar to the response provided
> by the ICANN Board, which is likely not acceptable by the other
> communities. However, if this input is provided by an independent party,
> such as Sidley, it might be received differently. *
>
>
>
> …I can tell you that it will not be received differently. The key point
> that the numbers community and many of us here in the names community have
> been making is that a specific IANA Functions Operator should not be in
> control of the TM and domain because that undermines if not destroys the
> ability to switch IFOs when needed. This is an economic rather than a legal
> fact (please check the voluminous scientific literature on switching costs)
> and it is hard to conceive of how legal advice is going to change this.
>

FWIW, I disagree with Milton on this. If that was indeed the case then NTIA
would have made sure to register the TM/IPR to another entity other than
the IFO since they currently have the power to move IANA.

Nevertheless, this does not mean i am overly against move to IETF, i am
just not in agreement with the rationale you stated above.



>
>
> The position of ICANN’s board is a familiar one: it is “trust us.” If
> “trust us” were an acceptable answer to the many accountability issues we
> are facing, we could all take a nice rest and avoid a lot of the
> institutional design and reform problems we are trying to solve. Here
> again, I don’t see how expensive legal advice is going to alter the nature
> of or reception given to ICANN’s board response. It is not about trust; it
> is about robust and well-designed institutional arrangements.
>

I think its beyond just trust as it concerns IANA TM/IPR as its more on
legal agreement. Which is currently the case at the moment. It will again
require adding a few lines in the agreement of the respective operational
communities requiring ICANN to comply.


>
>
> I agree with Greg that this CWG should not be pressured to “go along to
> get along,” but fundamentally, these are issues for the CWG to debate and
> resolve as a matter of policy – there is no room for legal advice unless
> you know what you want to do with the TMs.
>

+1 on this


> People who think ICANN should control the TMs and domain need to tell the
> rest of the community why that is not an obstacle to separability and what
> happens when there is a change of IFOs.
>

Please refer to my comment above.



> That is not fundamentally a legal question. Once you have a specific idea
> as to how to reconcile separability and control of the TMs and domain by
> ICANN, then and only then can you can ask for legal advice about whether
> that idea is feasible. The idea that the lawyers are going to be able to
> resolve a very critical policy debate is just wrong.
>

I agree on this as well..

Regards

>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
>
>


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------





*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*

The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20150717/f931e9ed/attachment.html>